Sometimes, it is hard to believe you are serious about not wanting animals to be used in research. Here you are posting another set of you tube clips, without reference to what has been going on in the discussion before, and also used in another strand. Laaaaaazy! Why can you not summarize your own views based on the clips? I for one have no desire to go and see any of these clips, simply because that would suggest yet one more viewer has seen them. And since I refuse to be on face book or you tube (you know the joke: both are not-working tools?) I cannot indicate I don't like them either. Not that that makes any difference, any such items are only watched and liked by the "true believers" who are convinced anything on youtube is the unvarnished and undoctored truth. Oh well, back to Grumpy Cat.... (my own)...

I am not lazy: I am very active in this period to spread around leaflets, manifests, posters about Stop Vivisection.And I am going to the manifestations for Stop Vivisection in Venice in occasion of the Cinema Festival.I am speaking about the topic trying to inform as many people as possible.

In the first video are speaking some biologists, neurologists, immunologists etc. about replacing animals in research for cancer, brain diseases, respiratory diseases.

In the second video you can see some beagles touching the grass and seeing the sun for the first time after a life in a lab.

In the third video you see how BIO-ENGEENERING AND COMPUTER MODELLING can replace animal testing and give better results and a safer medicine.

Hello Letizia: I am not going to look at those clips for reasons given. However, I can assure you that when ever possible animals are replaced - tell me, have you ever heard of the "three Rs"? They stand for the aim in all experiments: Reduction (of numbers of animals used, to the minimum needed to get a statistically significant outcome) often though Refinement, new technology and techniques, and Replacement, either by non-animal methods or by using a "lesser" animal as a model. To obtain money to do animal research, you have to argue using these principles. How many animals, why this species, why these methods, and have you done a literature search to see if there are alternatives to your use of animals? Now you seem to regard these as mere words that are ignored, but you could not get a grant application looked at if you did not stick to these rules. You don't believe me, do you? And unless you have permission from your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, you will not be able to get animals even if you have the grant. You don't believe me do you? Sounding too much as if research animals have protection? Does not fit your views, no doubt? If you ever bothered to go to a research defense society web site, you will find lots of examples of 3Rs. Do you know how much is now done using zebra fish instead of "higher" vertebrates? Or what about that great research work horse, the fruitfly? Or horseshoe crabs? If not, I suggest you try and educate yourself before voicing spurious arguments or downright offensive language about research and researchers. As for beagles in labs, you have not read the guidelines for the uses of dogs in research, have you? (oh, sorry - these are just words to you, I forgot). And what if a beagle never sniffed grass? Dogs are not horses. It is not physical but psychological attention dogs need, and they must be given such, by law. Check it out. As for using bio-engineering or computer modelling, they are used extensively but if you know anything about computer programming (do you? or as much as you know about animals and their needs or animal research?) you must know the GIGO principle - Garbage In, Garbage Out- in other words, it is no use trying to model what happens in a living organism if you do not have good data to start with. And where do these come from, you think? Modelling is only one of the ways to understand life, its normal functions, and disease processes. The other are all those methoda which you think are replacements, such as case studies, epidemiology, tissue culture, etc. In reality, each of these is one of the methods used, just like animal research is. So by all means, like so many animal rights people I have met, go give yourself a rosy glow by handing out leaflets - but don't check the nearest wastepaper basket.... your leaflets do nothing for animals, nothing, if they are of the standard of argument you provide here.

Animal research can ALWAYS be replaced by the alternative methods.Animal research has never been validated as a scientific method.To apply an alternative method is always required the validation process. This bureaucracy stop the use of the alternative methods also when it is possible and more useful than animal research.

"Results from animal tests are not transferrable between species, and therefore can not guarantee product safety for humans.... In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Herbert Gundersheimer, dr.med.

For decades, the link between smoking and lung cancer was challenged because it couldn't be shown in mice. NEAVS

Cobie, I think that you don't want watch my videos because you are worry to be persuaded. Or maybe because you know you are wrong but you want avoid to face your conscience, and you prefer go out of the responsibility hiding yourself behind the excuse that you don't know.But you can't hide your conscience because you refuse to know, to see, to watch.Ignorance don't save from guilty when you have the possibility to know and you deliberately refuse to know.

I want post a 2 hours documentary half in Italian and half in English language.The documentary is about the research for the cures for cancer. The topic of animal research is not touched.But there is a clear explanation about how the health system, the drug companies and the official medicine work.It speaks about the accepted official methods like chemotherapy, medicines and surgery.And the alternative methods: sodium bicarbonate, vitamin b17, mistletoe, marijuana, shark cartilage etc.It worth to be watched.Have you ever seen some relative, friend, acquaintance etc. dying for cancer because he was doing chemotherapy and following exactly the official medical prescriptions??????

Consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential health and safety hazards. U.S. regulatory agencies that require or use toxicity test data are responsible for protecting human and animal health and the environment. To carry out this mission, agencies require that all toxicity test methods used for regulatory purposes are based on sound science and are able to adequately identify hazards.

Human and animal responses to toxicants are complex, and difficult to accurately assess using only in vitro systems or computer models. The term in vitro refers to experiments performed in laboratory containers, such as test tubes or petri dishes,with living tissues, organs, or cells obtained from animals or people. No single in vitro test method is currently available to serve all regulatory needs for a specific testing area. Rather, integrated approaches using alternative test methods, conventional animal testing, and other information about the properties of a test substance are used to accurately assess hazards.

Once an alternative test has been developed by a scientist, it must be scientifically "validated," or evaluated in multiple laboratories to see if its results reliably predict outcomes in people. Validation is sometimes a frustratingly slow process, and the United States has unfortunately proved to be far slower at validating alternatives than the European Union.

Quote:

To apply an alternative method is always required the validation process. This bureaucracy stop the use of the alternative methods also when it is possible and more useful than animal research.

Yes, there is always the need to give evidence to support the usefulness of a method in practice. You may assume the alternative will work better, but the scientists need evidence as do the people whose lives may be at risk.

Quote:

"Results from animal tests are not transferrable between species, and therefore can not guarantee product safety for humans.... In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Herbert Gundersheimer, dr.med.

There is no guarantee of product safety using any method, including your proposed alternatives. The goal is to minimize the risk for the majority of the people. Protection from legal liability by testing for unsafe products is also protecting the consumer. The problem is you can never test all possible variations to ensure a complete protection using any method.

As for cancer, the thought it was one disease has been discounted for years now. Cancer is several diseases with several causes and treatments and different treatment programs work differently even with similar types of cancer.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential health and safety hazards. U.S. regulatory agencies that require or use toxicity test data are responsible for protecting human and animal health and the environment. To carry out this mission, agencies require that all toxicity test methods used for regulatory purposes are based on sound science and are able to adequately identify hazards.

Human and animal responses to toxicants are complex, and difficult to accurately assess using only in vitro systems or computer models. The term in vitro refers to experiments performed in laboratory containers, such as test tubes or petri dishes,with living tissues, organs, or cells obtained from animals or people. No single in vitro test method is currently available to serve all regulatory needs for a specific testing area. Rather, integrated approaches using alternative test methods, conventional animal testing, and other information about the properties of a test substance are used to accurately assess hazards.

Once an alternative test has been developed by a scientist, it must be scientifically "validated," or evaluated in multiple laboratories to see if its results reliably predict outcomes in people. Validation is sometimes a frustratingly slow process, and the United States has unfortunately proved to be far slower at validating alternatives than the European Union.

Quote:

To apply an alternative method is always required the validation process. This bureaucracy stop the use of the alternative methods also when it is possible and more useful than animal research.

Yes, there is always the need to give evidence to support the usefulness of a method in practice. You may assume the alternative will work better, but the scientists need evidence as do the people whose lives may be at risk.

Quote:

"Results from animal tests are not transferrable between species, and therefore can not guarantee product safety for humans.... In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Herbert Gundersheimer, dr.med.

There is no guarantee of product safety using any method, including your proposed alternatives. The goal is to minimize the risk for the majority of the people. Protection from legal liability by testing for unsafe products is also protecting the consumer. The problem is you can never test all possible variations to ensure a complete protection using any method.

As for cancer, the thought it was one disease has been discounted for years now. Cancer is several diseases with several causes and treatments and different treatment programs work differently even with similar types of cancer.

In the real world and not the spin world of ARA propaganda, every cell in our body can mutate its nucleus if the right conditions or the right stimulus, is applied. That mutation can become a cell dividing cancer feeding on other cells . That is why new chemicals & additives to our lives must be tested. It is not cheap maintaining lab animals as proven by the fact that H$U$ & PETA will not shelter animals due mainly to expense issues such as shots (Lab researched by the way) food ,shelter , staff & in a lot of cases security because if the ALF folk knew how badly some of those animals are maintained by PETA they would raid the place before PETAfiles did another dumpster toss.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Hello Letizia: I don't think I am lazy when I do not want to see the videos you posted - I think that if you post a link, you should have the courtesy to provide a brief summary of what is in a video so people can make up their minds whether they want to spend their valuable time watching. And why does it prove anything if a film on cancer treatments does not mention animal research? Do you really think chemotherapy treatments were developed without it? Come to that, why do you ask, have I ever seen the discomfort of someone receiving chemotherapy? Of course I have, so what? If the alternative is to die of cancer, that is not exactly a kind death; but regardless, any patient has the right to refuse treatment - as a good friend of mine did, and I don't know whether he would have suffered more if he had continued chemotherapy. But he might still be alive..... even if suffering. Talking about suffering: you keep repeating the AV mantra that laboratory animals suffer stress. Prove it. You don't know about the the 3Rs or laboratory animal science, do you? Tell me how the most common lab animals, mice and rats, need to be housed and taken care of by law[i] and then tell me why you think they are stressed. Remember again that [i]I do not have to prove they are not, since you made the claim.

And now I am not just mad, but lazy as well.... what does that make you?

Hello Letizia: I don't think I am lazy when I do not want to see the videos you posted - I think that if you post a link, you should have the courtesy to provide a brief summary of what is in a video so people can make up their minds whether they want to spend their valuable time watching. And why does it prove anything if a film on cancer treatments does not mention animal research? Do you really think chemotherapy treatments were developed without it? Come to that, why do you ask, have I ever seen the discomfort of someone receiving chemotherapy? Of course I have, so what? If the alternative is to die of cancer, that is not exactly a kind death; but regardless, any patient has the right to refuse treatment - as a good friend of mine did, and I don't know whether he would have suffered more if he had continued chemotherapy. But he might still be alive..... even if suffering. Talking about suffering: you keep repeating the AV mantra that laboratory animals suffer stress. Prove it. You don't know about the the 3Rs or laboratory animal science, do you? Tell me how the most common lab animals, mice and rats, need to be housed and taken care of by law[i] and then tell me why you think they are stressed. Remember again that [i]I do not have to prove they are not, since you made the claim.And now I am not just mad, but lazy as well.... what does that make you?

The documentary about cancer explain how chemotherapy is a fraud, and how the other cures have always been prohibited.I had lots of relatives and acquaintances died because they were doing chemotherapy. Chemotherapy PRODUCES the cancer.

10 days ago I adopted 5 female of albine rat, 4-5 months old. They have been saved from an Italian laboratory by the I CARE and accommodated by some rats lovers in a new rehabilitation center for animals waiting for someone to adopt them.My little rats are lovable , very clever, sociable and funny.Probably they have not been tested on.Because adults rats from laboratory, after the stressing conditions, the pain and the experiments, are shocked for all their life and sometime is impossible to domesticate them.

I adopted an adult rat after it finished a series of experiments which did not require a necropsy upon completion. It was easy to acclimate to living at our house at the time. I named it Gilda Ratner and it lived with us for quite a while before dying of what was assumed to be old age.

LetiziaPallara wrote:

10 days ago I adopted 5 female of albine rat, 4-5 months old. They have been saved from an Italian laboratory by the I CARE and accommodated by some rats lovers in a new rehabilitation center for animals waiting for someone to adopt them.My little rats are lovable , very clever, sociable and funny.Probably they have not been tested on.Because adults rats from laboratory, after the stressing conditions, the pain and the experiments, are shocked for all their life and sometime is impossible to domesticate them.

Yes, it has. By the definition given by the humane society: ....Yes, there is always the need to give evidence to support the usefulness of a method in practice. You may assume the alternative will work better, but the scientists need evidence as do the people whose lives may be at risk. ...There is no guarantee of product safety using any method, including your proposed alternatives. The goal is to minimize the risk for the majority of the people. Protection from legal liability by testing for unsafe products is also protecting the consumer. The problem is you can never test all possible variations to ensure a complete protection using any method.

Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews

Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific) contribution remains uncertain.1 Anecdotal evidence or unsupported claims are often used as justification—for example, statements that the need for animal research is “self evident”2 or that “Animal experimentation is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time.”3 Such statements are an inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of research. We argue that systematic reviews of existing and future research are needed.

Several methods are available to evaluate animal research. These include historical analysis,7 critiques of animal models,8 investigations into the development of treatments,5 surveys of clinicians' views,9 and citation analyses.10 However, perhaps the best way of producing evidence about the value of animal research is to conduct systematic reviews of animal studies and, where possible, compare the results of these with the results of the corresponding clinical trials. So what do studies that have done this show?......The value of animal research into potential human treatments needs urgent rigorous evaluationSystematic reviews can provide important insights into the validity of animal research

I adopted an adult rat after it finished a series of experiments which did not require a necropsy upon completion. It was easy to acclimate to living at our house at the time. I named it Gilda Ratner and it lived with us for quite a while before dying of what was assumed to be old age.

http://www.goosemoose.com/rfc/index.php?topic=4084633.0She was never aggressive, but so scared. She had a form of PTSD for a long time. She suddenly didn't recognise anything in her surroundings and would be terrified. If I tried to pick her up, she'd hurt herself trying to get away. She didn't even recognise me. She did this even after I'd had her over a year. She'd be a sweet and affectionate thing most of the time, but every once in a while. You could even see the sudden tear in her eyes. ..http://www.ratz.co.uk/rescue.htmlThese 12 rats were the last remaining group of about 50 that were removed from a terrible rescue in London. They had been left for at least 6 months with no food, water or a clean cage. Many rats had died due to dehydration and starvation and the survivors were eating the remains of their cage mates to stay alive. These rats had nowhere to go and were facing being put to sleep having never known the love and care of a good home. I offered them shelter and a kind man drove these animals from Surrey to Exmouth to get them to me, the only place able to offer them help. When they arrived they were totally un-handable and would scream and run in terror as soon as you went near them. Some were in a worse state than others and one died the evening she arrived. We can only put her death down to stress and the terrible conditions she was forced to live in. I looked at their little faces and the terror in their eyes and sat and cried. What these animals had been through was unimaginable and I knew that they would never be able to go to a new home. Hamnpork was the only boy and at first was placed by himself. The girls all went in a big cage together with another 4 does that were also untamed. After a few days to settle in they were all caught and sent to the vet were the were man handled to get mite treatment and cream for their injuries as they had started eating each other alive. They all had bad respiratory problems but we decided that treating them would only cause more stress to these poor animals. After a few weeks in quarantine Hamnpork was slowly introduced to some new friends, 3 other old bucks who had come into Ratty Haven and were to retire here due to their age. He took a bit of time to settle with them but slowly they became good friends and he learnt to trust me also. The girls also grew to trust me also and although they never became pet rats, I could handle them to clean them out and they would take food from my hands. Hamnpork however, became a loving boy who loved to sit on my lap and eat yoghurt drops. They all had clean cages, plenty of food and water which to many rats was taken for granted but these rats could not believe the food bowl was filled each day and for the first few months cleared the bowl with in an hour not trusting that it would be refilled. Sadly one night not to long ago Hamnpork died in his sleep, I found him in the morning curled up in his bed with one of his new friends. He looked so peaceful and that is why I rescue, to know that these rats all ended their days knowing the comfort of a full belly, clean cage and that one human did love them and in return they respected me enough to share their lives with me and eat yoghurt drops on my lap.

Do you think even rats will survive the AETM ELE in 500 years from not reducing emissions 90% by 2023?I have an old white male rat and a medium year old dog. Turnup and Niburu, really my son's. I like to experiment with them. With food and hoping for more understanding along with play. All our plants are members of the family, too. Even the ones we eat.The most important thing is not AR BS. It is reducing emissions by going solar, one or no children, hybrid or electric car, composting and gardening. Then, maybe, if we avoid the horrors of extinction, and save millions of species the same fate, then you can go on your diatribe about animal vivisection. Remember, first, it will be the horrors of the 2040s population crashing at 400 million per year, and avoiding your own vivisection.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein